Where once, self-motivated women empowered each other to be all that they could be, whether that was as a doctor, lawyer, or an otherwise “successful” cog in the capitalist machine,i today’s feminism is indistinguishable from all the other various and sundry forms of “victimhood” that socialism so inevitably produces. Today, the perverted rationalism of equal outcomes, rather than the original intention of equal opportunities, is as much a part of the contemporary women’s rights manifesto as it is with niggerii rights activists, etc. It’s a sad state of affairs.

It’s perhaps doubly sad because even equal outcomes can’t make these supposedly “suppressed” folks happy with their lot in life. It can never be enough. It’s always relative and as long as there’s someone with more physical shit than them, they’ll be miserable. But that’s not the only reason that young feminists in particular are so miserable at the moment.iii They’re also finding out that, unlike in engineering, in social experiments there are trade-offs.

In this current social experiment, the trade-off is that these young women, who’ve actually seized the opportunities presented them, if not also a bit of the “boost” of equal outcomes fanaticism, can’t for the life of them find a man who can handle their newfound power.

As the amount of masculinity available to a culture is a zero-sum game, for every step up in power that these young women and their forebears have taken, there are proportionately fewer men who can cope with the resulting emasculation.iv All of which has led to an unintended consequence the size of the dinosaur-destroying asteroid from a few million years back, and similarly destructive.

These women were sold a bill of goods, a (historically naïve) narrative about empowerment, and duped into thinking that there would be no negative consequences for all the positive liberties they intended to accrue. Unwittingly, these well-heeled women, with good heads on their shoulders,v if a little past their sexual/teachable primes, are now being confronted with the fact that they didn’t have endless time to find a man after all. And they’re woefully unprepared.

Now past their physical primes – and alone – a great many of them are becoming single mothers… of pets. These lovely young ladies – pretty, talented, and intelligent – are adopting furry children for whom they buy organic pet food, expensive toys, and spa treatments – so frustrated are they by the manboys their “age.”vi It’s a goddam tragedy.

As one of the few Lords kicking about these parts that’s actually worthy of the title, I’m personally quite alright with this. The most significant effect on my life is that, because so many women have taken to wearing the pants, I find far more interesting conversations with these bright and curious women than I do with the butthurt derpy manboys in my midst. But what do I care? For these unfortunate ladies, however, handed down xth-wave feminism from on high, I guess this is one of those “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”

The solution is, of course, aristocracy, which is exactly what La Serenissima is all about. The system we’re building makes it far easier for women to identify strong menvii and it also creates far more men from whom to choose.viii There’s still plenty of room for strong and motivated women, just as there always has been in the civilized, non-Sharia Law, world, but with less expectation of outcome and less resulting guilt when you’d just rather find a good Lord.

In Summa: I envision an environment where young nobodies walk in naked, rather than encrusted in entitlements, and see if they have what it takes to become people.

Seriously, is it any wonder that early 20th century US factory owners, who were by and large anti-union, were so supportive of feminism, while the unions opposed it? Hm, maybe because women were cheaper labour (undercutting the unions) and a consumer demographic waiting to be unleashed? Those factory owners weren’t dumb. But your reading of “the international rights movement” sure as fuck is. For a chuckle, see also “7 Female CEOs Who Inspire Us All To Be Cogs In The Capitalist Machine” [↩]

“Her : So basically, if I have this right, what you’re saying is that when you use the term nigger you’re referring in fact to people of any given actual fenotype who happen to have adopted the various failures you associate with black people in terms of cultural, civilizational, and social organizational history.

Me : Which is indeed what I do. Nigger homeowners in that article does not mean “black people”, such as a successful lawyer. It does mean NIGGER people, such as a pureblood Irish protestant dood who has not the ability to manage a fucking mortgage.” (via Trilema – give the whole article a read.) [↩]

At least that’s my reading of history, though it’s perhaps possible that “real men” have always been in short supply. It’s an admittedly hard thing to measure. [↩]

By that, I mean that, quite unlike the emotional and always-offended manboys, they’re at once reflective, honest with themselves, and curious about the world. I have the privilege of having a few such bright lights in my life. But it still, by and large, sucks to be them. [↩]

Yep, that’s a quote from MP who is pretty smart, but he often says things that are not smart like in this case. That you would repeat this statement suggests that either you’re too deferential to him, or that you have some serious misunderstandings about engineering. If the later, here are some hints:

Part of engineering is simply trying to improve on one or more dimensions without sacrificing on others. For instance coming up with a new algorithm that lets you do something both faster and with less memory. But a large part of engineering is: given the best way I know how to do something, what’s the best mix of these competing properties to make the final product the best?

This is not a criticism of your article, which is fine. Just pointing out that it contains a dumb throwaway comment that would lead any engineer reading it to downgrade how seriously you should be taken.

This is an interesting one and I think it’s at the core of most engineering decisions. To my mind, this reduces to “something is better than nothing” or “it’s the best we could do.” I tend to discard such nonsense as optimal stock thinking.

But a large part of engineering is: given the best way I know how to do something

The best way that you know is in no way equal to the best that’s possible or the best that there is. Again, this isn’t engineering so much as whatever’s convenient, cheap, and easy. Sorta like the difference between a trip to Bali and a trip to your local waterpark.

Just pointing out that it contains a dumb throwaway comment that would lead any engineer reading it to downgrade how seriously you should be taken.

I wouldn’t be so quick to speak for “any” engineer if I were you. Contravex has a big readership and there are plenty of bright lights out there (not that you aren’t one of them).

[…] At first, the sheer number of supporters of constitutional democracy was sufficient to establish this social experiment. Eventually, however, sheer numbers would prove insufficient. Why? Because this […]

[…] quite evidently is or else she’d be getting on with the show by now, would no doubt be some unparented niggers. Putting The Economist, or anything equally pseudo-intellectual, much less anything warranting […]